Like I said, if you want to do it go ahead. It's your right too. But don't then sit there and demand everyone around you act like everything is normal or everything is ok. This is a mentally unstable condition, and I wouldn't be ok with people with other mental instabilities teaching either.

Well realistically, 'normal' is defined by the majority. It's not healthy though, that's correct. There is something obviously wrong with them, but the question is whether it's okay for them to get sex changes if they really feel like it (and I say it should be), or if they should go in for psychiatric help.

I mean, nobody should have to hate their own body, and we have advanced so far in body modification because we want to be able to change how we look and feel about ourselves. While transexuality is an extreme case, it's not as if it's much different.

Like I said, if you want to do it go ahead. It's your right too. But don't then sit there and demand everyone around you act like everything is normal or everything is ok. This is a mentally unstable condition, and I wouldn't be ok with people with other mental instabilities teaching either.

Homosexuals only occur in 5%-10% of animals, but they are completely natural. Same with any other kind of differing sexuality. The only difference in humans is that we identify (through things such as hair length and make up) differences between males and females.
If they are born wanting to identify as more female, despite being male, that is not unnatural, and all the bigoted logic in the world doesn't change that.

It's not bigoted nor bad logic, otherwise about 50% of all males would identify with females and 50% of females would identify with males. If it was so easy to interchange between "Hey I'm a boy but feel like a girl!" or the other way around, you'd see far more of it through-out history, and far more people doing it through-out history (and don't give me any of the "But they were oppressed!" bullshit. I'm sure if it was really that easy and natural, a King would have no problem telling his subjects that he feels pretty and wants them to feel pretty too)

Us being able to identify as male or female through make-up, accessories, hair, ect. has NOTHING to do with actually having surgery or changing your hormones. That's why there's actually a difference between Transvestites and Transsexuals.

Also, homosexual necrophilia has occurred with ducks, sex trafficking has occurred with dolphins, inter-species mating has occurred in dogs, and eating your parents or lover after sex has occurred with insects, but I'm sure I will never see you at a rally supporting any of those things; you oppressive bigot.

Well realistically, 'normal' is defined by the majority. It's not healthy though, that's correct. There is something obviously wrong with them, but the question is whether it's okay for them to get sex changes if they really feel like it (and I say it should be), or if they should go in for psychiatric help.

I mean, nobody should have to hate their own body, and we have advanced so far in body modification because we want to be able to change how we look and feel about ourselves. While transexuality is an extreme case, it's not as if it's much different.

Like I said, if you want to do it go ahead. It's your right too. But don't then sit there and demand everyone around you act like everything is normal or everything is ok. This is a mentally unstable condition, and I wouldn't be ok with people with other mental instabilities teaching either.

again belief is not religion. belief is fine, harm is not. believe in god, i don't care, but do not harm other people simply because your preacher says you should. Questioning the evils of a widely held religion does not mean I don't respect those who believe in a higher power. And I am aware many religious people have done great things, but many have also done great evils. Gangs in California have done good, too, but also kill other gang members, should they be left to their own devices? until they can get along, let us separate the kids for a bit, and give them something to do, like fixing roads and bridges or grow more food, maybe even progress our universal understanding a bit. It doesn't undermine their God, but perhaps tey will realize that regardless of belief, they don't need religion.

An evil person will harm because of his own goals, a good person will not. It doesn't matter what the preacher says, it matters what type of person you are, and even if religion itself was gone, they would find another medium to express their goals in a just manner, because that is the way people are.

You are blaming a tool because the maker does not know how to properly utilize it, or utilizes it for evil.

And perhaps they will want it anyways. If you believe something is the truth, your opinion will never change. Why do you think we've been having this conversation this long if either of us were willing to change our minds? Or thoughts are not so revolutionary that they inspire millions to change themselves as people, otherwise they already would have.

to be honest if the world were at pace with religion, i would be perfectly happy, but it isn't. the reason being that religion is broken. holy books are rewritten by politicians as a means to an end and no one lives by any religion's moral code, but love to throw its laws around when it fits their small world view. as i stated before i would be fine if christians actually cared about what christ said, or if buddhists lived peaceably with others, offering aid when needed, not forsaking their own life or that of his neighbor as the great Sidhartha Guatama (Buddha) asked them to do. jesus said love, but christians hate. Buddha said be polite and obey, buddhists maim themselves in revolt.
Religion is broken and is hurting people. if it wasn't broken, i would be happy. what do you do with the broken toy? you fix it, or throw it away.

i believe that people can believe what they like, but they cannot use it to harm others. laws should protect the populace, not reinforce belief. You believe in God? fine. you think Gays should be exiled or even killed? i think it's time to retire, Sen. Cruz. I'm not sying that belief is to be forbidden. belief is not religion. religion is a repetition of any activity such as prayer or discipline. but once again, it is broken. t has become the repetition of propaganda and hate-speech, and terror. When a killer continues to kill, you put him away. many things have great potential as other things, but are used wrongly.

a false political ideology is one that states that any one human life is greater than any other. (i.e. monarchy, oligharchy, matriarchy, patriarchy, theocracy.) the idea that all human life is entitled to all the same rights as another is more logical and is also more apt to breed ideologies of temperance, sufferage and unity.

i cant use a religion i never practiced as an example. I've been buddhist and I've been Christian. so I can use them as a standard candle to compare my universe to. Frankly i like the atheist universe better.

You say that, yet earlier you preached about not letting religious people have anything Atheists have come up with. You are denying the right to live in a healthy way because of your preconceived (and false) perceptions about their ideology.

Earlier you said that what scares you is that people are willing to die and kill for their god, but what scares me right now is that you truly do believe you are on the fore-front of the most righteous path and are willing to become a tyrant yourself in order to make sure everyone else gets there too, by force if necessary.

You are no different then the religious people you so despise, but I'm sure you'd justify that too, the same way they would.

again belief is not religion. belief is fine, harm is not. believe in god, i don't care, but do not harm other people simply because your preacher says you should. Questioning the evils of a widely held religion does not mean I don't respect those who believe in a higher power. And I am aware many religious people have done great things, but many have also done great evils. Gangs in California have done good, too, but also kill other gang members, should they be left to their own devices? until they can get along, let us separate the kids for a bit, and give them something to do, like fixing roads and bridges or grow more food, maybe even progress our universal understanding a bit. It doesn't undermine their God, but perhaps tey will realize that regardless of belief, they don't need religion.

An evil person will harm because of his own goals, a good person will not. It doesn't matter what the preacher says, it matters what type of person you are, and even if religion itself was gone, they would find another medium to express their goals in a just manner, because that is the way people are.

You are blaming a tool because the maker does not know how to properly utilize it, or utilizes it for evil.

And perhaps they will want it anyways. If you believe something is the truth, your opinion will never change. Why do you think we've been having this conversation this long if either of us were willing to change our minds? Or thoughts are not so revolutionary that they inspire millions to change themselves as people, otherwise they already would have.

so you are happy now with the world?
it can't get better?
there is a minimum of evil?
religion isn't harming anyone?
the removal of oppression of any sort isn't worth it?
fundamentals in positions of power aren't a threat to the human race as a whole?
someone who believes the world will end for their god's glory with a finger on the launch button is the most terrifying thing in the world. Scarier than hell, scarier than the prospect of being alone in the universe, scarier than the possibility that we are evil by nature. the fact that most christians believe the armageddon and return of christ will ahppen in their lifetime and wish to be one of god's vessels deeply increases the probability that one man will be in a position to initiate Mutually Assured Destruction. Show me the world is fine with religion and I'll tip my hat but if you can show even the slightest amount of evidence that religion and theism of any sort is harmful, then is it not our job as good men to expose that and to free people from that oppression?

If communism is oppressive and is to be destroyed, then what makes religious oppression any different?

I stand by my statement. religion should be removed from human society, the dalai lama teaches a religionthat uses self immolation and separatism as forms of peaceful protest and that is the peaceful religion. How do these beliefs help his people? they don't. if any oppression can be removed should it not be removed?

I am aware that there will alwaays be retarded belief in the supernatural, but must it always become religion, or can it remain as an opinion formed by someone who has yet to discover an answer?

when we rely on religion for the answer, we stop lookiing for the real answers and this is oppressive, too.

So I reitterate, is it not our job as god men to stand up for what we know to be right?

The greatest evil is not committed by the actions of evil men, but by the inaction of good men. It is not enough to no do evil, we should do good.

I never said Communism was oppressive. No political ideology inherently is. I was just making a point that Atheists are just as capable of evil as religious people, and since you would have pulled the "But religious people do it more" card, I wanted to pull the "but historically, Atheists have done it at a great magnitude".

He doesn't teach that, actually. Self-immolation was not his idea.

Religions do not help people? Are you not aware that Catholicism alone is one of if not thee biggest contributor to charity in all of history?

So it's only stupid when it has to do with religion, but not on its own? See, this is the problem with you, is that you are absolutely, 100% convinced that ANYTHING that has to do with religion is fundamentally BAD, and that NOTHING good can come of it. Even if the exact same beliefs were held outside of the spectrum of 'religion', you'd be fine with it, but it's the title that gets you. That's why people dislike you and insult you, you know, it's not because "Oh I'm right and they're just mindless sheep", it's because you are deluding yourself and everyone else can see it.

Well, what I believe is right has a lot to do with personal freedom. "True democracy", as you put it. Yet apparently, what you believe to be right is limiting opportunities that you personally find harmful. Earlier you said that you would not make everyone eat escargot because you alone thought it was inherently delicious, but right now you are literally preaching to ban all religons everywhere because you alone believe they are inherently evil. Can't you see your own hypocrisy? Can't you see your own delusion? Do you even know what you say?

You preach of doing good and having the best intentions for man, but you literally sound like a dictator when you preach of stripping personal freedom and opportunity because "I know what's best more than you". If a religious person ever said that to you, you would nearly murder with rage.

to be honest if the world were at pace with religion, i would be perfectly happy, but it isn't. the reason being that religion is broken. holy books are rewritten by politicians as a means to an end and no one lives by any religion's moral code, but love to throw its laws around when it fits their small world view. as i stated before i would be fine if christians actually cared about what christ said, or if buddhists lived peaceably with others, offering aid when needed, not forsaking their own life or that of his neighbor as the great Sidhartha Guatama (Buddha) asked them to do. jesus said love, but christians hate. Buddha said be polite and obey, buddhists maim themselves in revolt.
Religion is broken and is hurting people. if it wasn't broken, i would be happy. what do you do with the broken toy? you fix it, or throw it away.

i believe that people can believe what they like, but they cannot use it to harm others. laws should protect the populace, not reinforce belief. You believe in God? fine. you think Gays should be exiled or even killed? i think it's time to retire, Sen. Cruz. I'm not sying that belief is to be forbidden. belief is not religion. religion is a repetition of any activity such as prayer or discipline. but once again, it is broken. t has become the repetition of propaganda and hate-speech, and terror. When a killer continues to kill, you put him away. many things have great potential as other things, but are used wrongly.

Everything can always get better, but the way of being better is not to limit opportunities. It is neither positive nor negative to be religious or non-religious, but it IS negative to ban religion as it is to force it. You're trying to hard to make it seem like the "Cause-all, end-all" of problems, yet even in areas where it was or is banned, evil still sprouted and wars still raged as they did everywhere else, you're just either too blind or arrogant to see it, and so are absolutely convinced that YOUR way is the way to absolute peace despite the fact it has been tried, many times before, and failed because it is not.

Well no, considering that christians do not run the world, and christianity as a whole is only 1/3 of the most powerful religions right now, and even then that doesn't include every other religion, or Atheism, or even places that really aren't fundamentally religious. Honestly, you're turning into a paranoid loony because you're both so terrified of religion and convinced that it's so awful, and nobody could ever tell you otherwise no matter what. I look at you the exact same way that I do to feminists who claim all men are inherently evil and oppressors, and everyone else should look at you that way too: An insensible person who will never listen to anything outside of his own argument.

It IS fine with religion, and just by living in peace you are able to see that, but you refuse to accept it and will refuse to accept it even if true peace was achieved. I get a feeling that you would rather have total war with Atheists than world peace if literally every person was religious.

No, because many religions do as much harm as they do good. It is not like a gun where it only has one function, it has many functions and can be used in many different ways. What you're suggesting is like banning a swiss-army knife with many different tools because ONE side of it might be used to hurt.

during the crusades, the church actively suppressed scientific advancement in health and sanitation thereby leading to the spread of the bubonic plague as well as deaths caused by simple, preventable illnesses. also, while the catholic church records are incomplete, the hindus, who also inhabitted the area, kept records also. so did the muslims and hebrews. there are more ways to kill than in combat. by suppressing the knowledge of the people, the murdered countless millions. in fact, doctors didn't know to wash their hands until 1847. how many do you think died from surgical infection before then?

In order to preserve life, scientific advances in medicine, sanitation and agriculture are necessary. Religions around the world have all suppressed this knowlege. can you count those deaths? no one can, there are simply too many to count.

Also, Mao Zedong betrayed his own country and laws. again it is a lack of accountability under a false ideology.

while you make a valid point, the tibetans remaining with the lama class priest were far from the majority and many tibetans left that system and embraced communism, even under a dictator. and no, i dont believe that if a majority wants a religion that it should be allowed, because that is essentially like saying that since i like escargot, i think everyone does. you yourself stated that religion i different from politics. All I am saying is the only true separation of the two wold be the nonexistence of religion. and to be honest i would even be happy to see it made law that a mameber of a religious organization (which serves a monarchy as previously stated) cannot rule in a democracy and that other religious people should be held accountable by laws of the land and of their faith. if christians gave half a fuck about what christ actually said, it would be different, but they don't. the issue is accountability and it's easy to escape responsibility by saying, "God said."

religion is just a way to keep people controlled and ignorant while avoid responsibility for your actions.

And many Chinese asked the government to leave the Tibetans alone, so they're in the same boat, aren't they? People can change and join different things, and many have. The Dalai Lama is, by majority, considered the rightful leader and ruler of Tibet.

Well no it wouldn't. That would be like saying that many people like escargot and so they have it on the average menu at a cafe, which would be sensible, actually.

Yes I did. No it wouldn't. By the very nature of what it is, to be involved in politics and rulership is to have a political ideology. Whether this is entwined within religion or not is completely irrelevant. You cannot get into politics without having a political ideology regardless of your religious affiliation, and you cannot get into religion without having a religious ideology, regardless of your political affiliation. They can exist perfectly independently of eachother.

Yes it is. It's also easy to escape accountability by saying "I'm just following orders". As stated before, evil men will be evil and good men will be good, regardless of what sect they are affiliated with or why.

Is that so? All, roughly, 27,000 religions that have existed since the birth of civilization? Not to mention unrecorded or unheard of ones. All of them are made specifically to subject people? (Which of course is different from the majority subjecting people, in your view, I suppose)

so you are happy now with the world?
it can't get better?
there is a minimum of evil?
religion isn't harming anyone?
the removal of oppression of any sort isn't worth it?
fundamentals in positions of power aren't a threat to the human race as a whole?
someone who believes the world will end for their god's glory with a finger on the launch button is the most terrifying thing in the world. Scarier than hell, scarier than the prospect of being alone in the universe, scarier than the possibility that we are evil by nature. the fact that most christians believe the armageddon and return of christ will ahppen in their lifetime and wish to be one of god's vessels deeply increases the probability that one man will be in a position to initiate Mutually Assured Destruction. Show me the world is fine with religion and I'll tip my hat but if you can show even the slightest amount of evidence that religion and theism of any sort is harmful, then is it not our job as good men to expose that and to free people from that oppression?

If communism is oppressive and is to be destroyed, then what makes religious oppression any different?

I stand by my statement. religion should be removed from human society, the dalai lama teaches a religionthat uses self immolation and separatism as forms of peaceful protest and that is the peaceful religion. How do these beliefs help his people? they don't. if any oppression can be removed should it not be removed?

I am aware that there will alwaays be retarded belief in the supernatural, but must it always become religion, or can it remain as an opinion formed by someone who has yet to discover an answer?

when we rely on religion for the answer, we stop lookiing for the real answers and this is oppressive, too.

So I reitterate, is it not our job as god men to stand up for what we know to be right?

The greatest evil is not committed by the actions of evil men, but by the inaction of good men. It is not enough to no do evil, we should do good.

I never said Communism was oppressive. No political ideology inherently is. I was just making a point that Atheists are just as capable of evil as religious people, and since you would have pulled the "But religious people do it more" card, I wanted to pull the "but historically, Atheists have done it at a great magnitude".

He doesn't teach that, actually. Self-immolation was not his idea.

Religions do not help people? Are you not aware that Catholicism alone is one of if not thee biggest contributor to charity in all of history?

So it's only stupid when it has to do with religion, but not on its own? See, this is the problem with you, is that you are absolutely, 100% convinced that ANYTHING that has to do with religion is fundamentally BAD, and that NOTHING good can come of it. Even if the exact same beliefs were held outside of the spectrum of 'religion', you'd be fine with it, but it's the title that gets you. That's why people dislike you and insult you, you know, it's not because "Oh I'm right and they're just mindless sheep", it's because you are deluding yourself and everyone else can see it.

Well, what I believe is right has a lot to do with personal freedom. "True democracy", as you put it. Yet apparently, what you believe to be right is limiting opportunities that you personally find harmful. Earlier you said that you would not make everyone eat escargot because you alone thought it was inherently delicious, but right now you are literally preaching to ban all religons everywhere because you alone believe they are inherently evil. Can't you see your own hypocrisy? Can't you see your own delusion? Do you even know what you say?

You preach of doing good and having the best intentions for man, but you literally sound like a dictator when you preach of stripping personal freedom and opportunity because "I know what's best more than you". If a religious person ever said that to you, you would nearly murder with rage.

to be honest if the world were at pace with religion, i would be perfectly happy, but it isn't. the reason being that religion is broken. holy books are rewritten by politicians as a means to an end and no one lives by any religion's moral code, but love to throw its laws around when it fits their small world view. as i stated before i would be fine if christians actually cared about what christ said, or if buddhists lived peaceably with others, offering aid when needed, not forsaking their own life or that of his neighbor as the great Sidhartha Guatama (Buddha) asked them to do. jesus said love, but christians hate. Buddha said be polite and obey, buddhists maim themselves in revolt.
Religion is broken and is hurting people. if it wasn't broken, i would be happy. what do you do with the broken toy? you fix it, or throw it away.

i believe that people can believe what they like, but they cannot use it to harm others. laws should protect the populace, not reinforce belief. You believe in God? fine. you think Gays should be exiled or even killed? i think it's time to retire, Sen. Cruz. I'm not sying that belief is to be forbidden. belief is not religion. religion is a repetition of any activity such as prayer or discipline. but once again, it is broken. t has become the repetition of propaganda and hate-speech, and terror. When a killer continues to kill, you put him away. many things have great potential as other things, but are used wrongly.

Everything can always get better, but the way of being better is not to limit opportunities. It is neither positive nor negative to be religious or non-religious, but it IS negative to ban religion as it is to force it. You're trying to hard to make it seem like the "Cause-all, end-all" of problems, yet even in areas where it was or is banned, evil still sprouted and wars still raged as they did everywhere else, you're just either too blind or arrogant to see it, and so are absolutely convinced that YOUR way is the way to absolute peace despite the fact it has been tried, many times before, and failed because it is not.

Well no, considering that christians do not run the world, and christianity as a whole is only 1/3 of the most powerful religions right now, and even then that doesn't include every other religion, or Atheism, or even places that really aren't fundamentally religious. Honestly, you're turning into a paranoid loony because you're both so terrified of religion and convinced that it's so awful, and nobody could ever tell you otherwise no matter what. I look at you the exact same way that I do to feminists who claim all men are inherently evil and oppressors, and everyone else should look at you that way too: An insensible person who will never listen to anything outside of his own argument.

It IS fine with religion, and just by living in peace you are able to see that, but you refuse to accept it and will refuse to accept it even if true peace was achieved. I get a feeling that you would rather have total war with Atheists than world peace if literally every person was religious.

No, because many religions do as much harm as they do good. It is not like a gun where it only has one function, it has many functions and can be used in many different ways. What you're suggesting is like banning a swiss-army knife with many different tools because ONE side of it might be used to hurt.

also, religion is oppression. it binds the mind and works of those who believe it with threat of pain and torture, it has slaughtered countless men, women and children, it has divided families and it has inspired the worst in mankind. it kept the world in chains for 500 years while the high priests were living in palaces. you want to compare totalitarianism to religion, then I will. Gods and kings both demand unwavering, unquestioning loyalty. deviation means death. gods and king both repress education in the hopes of maintaining an ignorant populace, one that doesn't ask questions. Both restrict basic rights and both demand blood sacrifice. so i ask you, is my desire to rid the world of religion any less moral than everyone's desire to rid it of totalitarianism?

Actually they don't. Records of the crusades are very shoddy and corrupted by now (which is only to be expected, of course. Everyone was bias and nobody was a scholar), but the general agreed amount of death is 1-2 million people. That doesn't sound like much now, but it really was a lot for its time

The Holocaust has a death total of a generally agreed 11 million (not including the the war itself as it involved many different faiths and ideologies. Some of which were Atheist). I'll be liberal here and give you a grand total of 13 million dead.

Now, Mao Zedong was just ONE communist leader, and while he is considered one of the worst tyrants in history, he is still one man and had a grand total of 49-78,000,000 deaths alone. Even if we completely cut out things caused by him indirectly and even missing/captured people, we would still have 40-50 million deaths. Nearly 4x more than both the Holocaust and the Crusades. And may I remind you, that is just ONE communist regime, out of the many there have been.

You do realize that not every religion is like the Monotheistic ones we have today, right? Have you even studied religion before you decided you hated it? Have you even looked throughout history at it, and it's many wonderful achievements of propelling mankind (including in Mesopotamia, where it was religion that urged the building and innovation of technology, medicine, and engineering, which was the pillar of which civilizations after it were built)?

during the crusades, the church actively suppressed scientific advancement in health and sanitation thereby leading to the spread of the bubonic plague as well as deaths caused by simple, preventable illnesses. also, while the catholic church records are incomplete, the hindus, who also inhabitted the area, kept records also. so did the muslims and hebrews. there are more ways to kill than in combat. by suppressing the knowledge of the people, the murdered countless millions. in fact, doctors didn't know to wash their hands until 1847. how many do you think died from surgical infection before then?

In order to preserve life, scientific advances in medicine, sanitation and agriculture are necessary. Religions around the world have all suppressed this knowlege. can you count those deaths? no one can, there are simply too many to count.

Also, Mao Zedong betrayed his own country and laws. again it is a lack of accountability under a false ideology.

I feel the same way about myself, I have to say that if those speeches were used against me I would feel a little bit upset, but you ask for clear answers and sources, and you try to make the other person think before they speak, I like that in general, not just mindless bashing ahaha

Well I'm certainly glad you can see the good in my speaking skills. Frankly, I do it to get to the point. I hate having my time wasted for any reason, and so I extend that courtesy to others and try not to waste anyone else's time either; which leads me to being very blunt and brutal in my words so that they cannot be confused or misheard. Though I admit I was frustrated in that debate.

and yeah, it sucks when people start to get offtrack because of a single comment that you used as an example or something, it's proof that they are desperately trying to derail the conversation to their favor

Oh well. When you get into a debate with someone, the point should be because you are trying to change your own views, not theirs.

If someone doesn't want to believe something, they won't. End of story. You could use all the proof you want to tell someone the colour of the sky is blue, but if they want it to be green, it will be and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

Thus, the only person you should be focused on changing in a debate is yourself, and only do so to get more perspective on the issues important to you.

It's fine. It was a joke from a picture a while back where a man was looking out the window and saw a dog and his owner walking down the street. The dog barked at another, bigger dog, and his owner just turned and said "See, this is why you have no ******* mates, Dave".

It's alright, I apologize for making you upset, but you don't need to thumb my posts up. Thumbs are a way to express positivity or negativity toward any type of comments; if you do not like them, it is perfectly within your right to thumb them down.

The thing is, the way I found OUT you gave me those thumbs was because of the question mark, which allows people to see who voted on content. I could only KNOW it was you if you had thumbed them down, which you did.

I wasn't pointlessly rude. If you read it more carefully, you would find I am not insulting your god or faith, but rather, the people who spread it about; and even they are just doing it to themselves, while I am mearly making an observation

It's ironic you call me tryhard, considering you just went through the time to thumb-down my last 20 comments as if it would have any effect on me personally or my ranking here. It's also odd you call me stupid, considering you were the one who read it uncorrectly. And I think the fact I have so many comment thumbs anyways (including my own jesus comment) speaks to the point that I am, in fact, quite hilarious. "Feelfag", is that supposed to be a derogatory term for someone who is passionate about certain things? If so, then I take pride in it, as it is only through passion that things grow.

Considering you are pretentious, arrogant, immature, and without a sense of humour; you fit the criteria for '12 year old funnyjunker' far better than I do.

Hey, I would just like to say thank you for telling me to get an account.
Yea I know, odd thing to give thanks for when I could have gotten one easily but then again, I was a dumb bastard then and could not think very well.
I notice your comments from time to time and get some good knowledge off of them, mainly the Lovecraft related ones.
But like I said, thank you very much and continue to be awesome.